SincereFinest disgusting, overrated, pointless

mraculeated The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Jenna Walter The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

jessicacoco2005 Vastly underrated film that sadly has not gotten the popularity that it deserves. Though in black and white, the film is physically beautiful; the castle, the landscape, even the costumes the young men and women wear. Both the photography and story line in the film display an unusual ethereal and poetic quality that remains in the viewers' mind long after it has been watched. Amid all this beauty, unsettling emotions simmer underneath. A sad, haunting story of a fatalistic love triangle revolving around the unrequited love of the main female character deeply in love with male cousin.

Michael_Elliott Blood and Roses (1960) ** (out of 4)Bram Stoker's Dracula will always be the best known vampire tale but Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu's "Carmilla" had a pretty big run of films in the 60s and 70s. In this film, Carmilla (Annette Vadim) gets jealous for the love of her cousin (Mel Ferrer) and soon she visits the tomb of a former relative who just happened to be a vampire. Before long Carmilla is transformed and goes after what she wants. I know director Roger Vadim has a strong following out there but I've always been left rather cold by his horror films. I guess horror films would be too insulting because this film (as well as SPIRITS OF THE DEAD) are more art-house than anything else. To be fair, I viewed the American version of this film, which runs around 13-minutes shorter than the French version and it's also dubbed. With that said, I'm really not sure the added scenes would have helped this movie as it appears they were mainly a prologue and epilogue. I'm really not sure what Vadim was going for here except that he wanted to bring some sort of beauty to the story. He does manage to do this with a couple good scenes including one dealing with a dying rose but outside of this I thought he sucked the film dry of any energy. Even at just 74-minutes the film seems to drag in spots and there's not an ounce of energy to be had anywhere. The performances are good for the most part but these here aren't enough to save the picture. Those who enjoy the French art pictures from this era might enjoy this but others should check out THE VAMPIRE LOVERS for a much better telling of the story.

Musidora-4 I'm mad about this film...might just be my favorite vampire film of all. It's not straight LeFanu, but it has an elegiac air that is. Doing LeFanu 'straight'--as in VAMPIRE LOVERS-- does not necessarily make for a better film as Hammer proved.When I first saw B&R 15 years ago, I was disappointed because I wanted it to be a direct telling of the source material. Later, I saw the film, again, and it seared in to my consciousness. For no explicable reason, it suddenly "made sense" and "glammed" me; and, in particular, Annette Stroyberg's performance suddenly "clicked in." The combination of her detachment, passivity, out bursts of passion, child-like felicity, and, of course, beauty recall her literary namesake. Her profound sorrow and knowledge of being pushed aside from all that she loves--not just Leopoldo but her whole life, really--is heart-rending. Vadim's Carmilla is always described as "jealous" or "bitter," though I don't see that. I do see deep disappointment and despair. It's refreshing, too, to see two women, rivals for one man's affection, treat each other so civilly, so kindly. Worse, Carmilla is slowly ostracized from people that she has grown up with and loved all because of her love of Leopoldo and, then, Georgia. Top that off with being possessed by a vampire, and I think dismissing her as "jealous" or "bitter" is a bit heavy-handed and easy.I'm not quite sure why this film is considered "exploitive"--was Vadim "exploiting" Annette and his divorce from BB? Was LeFanu's "Carmilla" exploitive? It actually had far more explicit descriptions of Carmilla's breast-centric vampirism of young woman, but I don't recall the novella ever being described as "exploitive."There are a couple of jarring moments in the film that don't sit right with me, for instance, Carmilla and Leopold doing the comic piano duet about fishing, and some parts of the celebrated "dream sequence"--just too "art house," even Bergman-esquire, and certainly screaming Cocteau. But, in the end, the film is enchanting, ravishing, and harrowing. As others have noted, the score is exquisite and sets just the right tone, and makes me think of "pavane" and "dead princess" at the same time. Definitely in my top 10.Just hoping that the delay in releasing BLOOD AND ROSES on DVD has to do with a pains- taking restoration and accumulation of extras on Paramount's part--this film is long overdue on DVD.

Maciste_Brother BLOOD AND ROSES, or ET MOURIR DE PLAISIR (to die of pleasure), is a spotty Eurocult horror film directed by Roger Vadim that works better as an experimental film than an actual movie that's supposed to entertain. I enjoyed watching this movie for the amazing atmosphere, some of the great visuals and the truly beautiful score. It's truly unique in this case. I also enjoyed the narration, which from what I've heard is not included in the original French version. Personally, I cannot imagine this film without narration. There would be extremely long moments with nothing going on.But BLOOD AND ROSES falls flat when it plays like a movie, with characters too sketchy for anyone to care about or moments which now look positively dated, like the drive through the country with the two men and the two little girls. That scene stands out for all the wrong reasons. Or the discussion in the kitchen, with the maid and all. Those moments are dated and clash with the modern, almost ahead of its times dream or horror sequences. On one hand, BLOOD AND ROSES feels hopelessly outdated and yet on the other hand it feels very contemporary, with the dream sequence being the highlight. I can't imagine what people thought of this scene when they saw it back in 1960.If you watch BLOOD AND ROSES for the Goth moments and the music, you won't be disappointed but if you expect some sort of Hammer style horror film, with lotsa action, this film won't be your cup of tea. I give it 7 stars for the atmosphere and music.